Talk:Gná and Hófvarpnir/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi. I'm going to be reviewing this article (and I'm sort of new to the GA review process). :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article is well written and the sources seem reliable. It looks fine to me. However, I don't understand what the last sentence of the lead means by "implications". Other than that, I think this article should pass. But because this is my first GA review, I'll get a second opinion. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for taking the time to review the article. By implications I basically just mean "what is implied" or, outright, "what we are to make of Gná and Hófvarpnir." I can see how that sounds pretty odd, and I can change it out if you like. If you have another suggestion, I'm open. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw the request for a second opinion listed on the GA nominations page by Kaguya-chan. I'd be happy to provide one. I'll look through the article and return shortly. –Whitehorse1 20:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I posted that a user has provided a second opinion. As the sought second opinion has now already been provided, I withdraw. –Whitehorse1 21:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very brief second opinion from Protonk (talk):

The last sentence in the lede is to vague. It should be expanded to provide a short description of those theories. Don't be afraid to have material in the lead be redundant to material in the body of the article! It looks odd with an article this short but it is preferred style and makes reading longer articles much easier.

"The source for these stanzas is not provided and they are otherwise unattested." What does "unattested" mean in this context?

"High, Just-As-High, and Third" We do wikilink to this, but in the text of this article it seems at first blush that "High" is the last name of a recognized author or a scholar studying the work (e.g. "High ends his description of Gna by saying that "from Gna's name comes the custom of saying that something gnaefir [looms] when it rises up high.""). I think it would help the flow of the article to be clear here. Take for example how quotations or assertions from canonical Christian Gospels are presented.

Also, the body of the article should include detail on the subject. I know that (much like my first point) the first two sentences in the LEDE cover this, but perhaps some repetition can be endured to add some more detail in the body?

Apart from these issues the articles seems well written, complies with the style guides and there are no image problems. I would say that I recommend this article be promoted once the preponderance of the issues are cleaned up. Of course the decisions to promote rests w/ the original reviewer. Thanks for giving me the change to read this article! Protonk (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the second opinion, Protonk. I will respond to your points as they are presented:

Agreed. Adjusted per your suggestion.
"Unattested" in this context means that there are no more attestations/sources for it other than that section of Gylfaginning. Most pieces of poetry in the Prose Edda appear with some sort of source, or else appear elsewhere and can be sourced that way, but these stanzas only appear here and Snorri gives no information about where it came from. Perhaps it originates in a lost lay. If I come across more commentary covering it I will put it here, it's certainly curious.
Agreed. I think presenting High as an "enthroned figure" solves the issue, which I've done.
I usually let the lead cover this in shorter articles. The reason for this is that the risk of run-on sentences is high when going into depth about the history of a source. If you still think background information should be pulled from the introduction for the sources, I'll add go ahead and try to insert it there as comfortably as possible.

Thanks for the compliment and please let me know if there's anything else! :bloodofox: (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. The article looks fine and I'm going to pass it :) Good work! Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm also supposed to encourage you to to review an good article nomination at WP:GAN. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I generally focus on article building in what spare time I have, but I will see what I can do. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]